A rules question...

I was watching Eurosport last night and they have a programme called WATTS. It's just little snippets of interesting and funny footage. Anyway, the clip that caught my attention was that of a player who chipped the ball up a bank towards the green, but he didn't quite give it "enough" and it rolled back down towards his feet.
The following scenario didn't happen in the clip, but what if? A player plays a similar shot to the one detailed above and it is on its way to the hole. At the time the player takes the shot, he takes a divot and a piece of the turf lands, say 6 inches away. There is a clear divot hole in the fairway. In the time it takes the ball to travel towards the hole, roll back down towards the player, he picks up the piece of turf and replaces it in the divot hole and smooths it over. The ball rolls back down and lands on top of the replaced piece of turf. Has the player committed a breach of the rules by "improving his lie" or some other infraction?

I do believe that this is a penalty.

I think Camilo Villegas was penalised for a similar thing this season

Exactly the Villegas situation

Thanks guys

Yes penalty

How can you be penalised for improving your lie if your ball hasn't even got to that place yet?

I don't know the correct ruling but it seems a bit bizarre to me.

I remember with Villegas i was something about improving the area that was the likely destination of the ball, ie making sure you're not in a divot

I guess if your ball is travelling back down the hill but 10 yards to the left you've got no problem

I've had a quick look on tinternet about this one and from what I can see, this relates only to the USA. It was an infringement under rule 23-1 of the USGA rules but under R&A rules, ball in motion is covered by rule 22. I couldn't see anything in there to cover this particular circumstance.

Thats interesting D4S as when the rule was changed re disqualifications, the R&A basically referenced the Villegas situation on their website. Quoted -

"For example, in the following scenarios, the Committee would not be justified in waiving or modifying the disqualification penalty:

· As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole. As the player was aware of the facts that resulted in his breaching the Rules, he should be disqualified under Rule 6-6d for failing to include the two-stroke penalty under Rule 23-1. "


It looks like they would consider this to be a penalty

The below would seem to cover it.



Rule 1-2 Exerting Influence on Ball

A player or caddie must not take any action to influence the position or the movement of a ball except in accordance with the Rules.
(Removal of loose impediment – see Rule 23-1)
(Removal of movable obstruction – see Rule 24-1)

* PENALTY FOR BREACH OF RULE 1-2:
Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

bluefox

Would that rule not just cover a ball at rest?

I don't know, bit stumped on this one!

Am i invisible?

"As a player’s ball is in motion, he moves several loose impediments in the area in which the ball will likely come to rest. Unaware that this action is a breach of Rule 23-1, the player fails to include the two-stroke penalty in his score for the hole......"

MPB

No, I saw your post but if you look at rule 23 on the R&A website it doesn't include anything about the ball in motion. Your quote refers to the USGA ruling.
My point is that the USGA and R&A rules appear different in this situation.

I was only joshing about being invisible D4S

My quote was taken directly from the R&A website -

http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2011/April/Rule-Change.aspx

"When a ball is in motion, a loose impediment that might influence the movement of the ball must not be removed. "

Found it!! It IS in rule 23 on the R&A site.

I really should have gone to Specsavers

drive4show wrote:bluefox

Would that rule not just cover a ball at rest?

I don't know, bit stumped on this one!

I would assume not as it does not say it only applies to ball at rest.

The difference with Villegas was that his ball was headed for the divots, and he moved them out of the way... effectively moving loose impediments out of the path of the ball. Guess the same would apply if the ball was headed for the divot mark, and he replaced the divots, even though that's moving the loose impediments into the path.